Does morality exist without God?

[blarg the 2nd]

if we ever achieved any moral notion is because of God. outside of him there is only sin, wickedness and depravity

that seems a bit empty to me

god is good because god is good not like god is bad because it is

 

[blarg the 2nd]

Where does your morality come from?

himself? and only from the rest of existence so much as it gave rise to him perhaps? just guessing hear

 

[quatona]

I said that someone that is a Moral Relativist can do evil things because they believe that their morality is made up by personal preferences.

[again ignoring the misrepresentation of moral relativism - sigh]
What anyone believes it is made up of is completely irrelevant for the ability to do evil. A moral objectivist/absolutists can do evil because his personal opinion as to what is the objective morality is mistaken.
As my example demonstrated, both moral objectivists/absolutists and subjectivists/relativist can do evil or good.
So you are still barking up the wrong tree when singling out a certain meta-moral view.

 

[quatona]

I'm just showing that moral truths are objective,

Well, please point me to a post where you have at least tried to show that - beyond merely claiming it.

and that people who do not believe they are objective are "Moral Relativist".

No, the opposite of "objectivist" is "subjectivist".

Besides, it´s dishonest to say that this is all you were showing. In pretty much every of your posts you kept pointing out how people can do evil because they are moral relativists. That goes far beyond what you claim you tried to show.

 

[quatona]

The great thing about moral subjectivism is that it prevents you from starting Holy Wars.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The great thing about moral subjectivism is that it prevents you from starting Holy Wars.

Perhaps, but it also prevents a society from successfully opposing a dictator who wants to start wars for his own purposes. There is no solid moral ground on which to stand to say that the dictator is doing something wrong.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[SonOfTheWest]

Perhaps, but it also prevents a society from successfully opposing a dictator who wants to start wars for his own purposes. There is no solid moral ground on which to stand to say that the dictator is doing something wrong.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Beyond all the tons of OTHER factors why people in the real world and in history have no opposed dictators. In order for that statement to be true, people would have to be something like True Neutral from D&D.

 

[quatona]

Perhaps, but it also prevents a society from successfully opposing a dictator who wants to start wars for his own purposes.

I fail to see how moral subjectivism prevents you from acting in your own (or your society´s, for that matter) best interests.

There is no solid moral ground on which to stand to say that the dictator is doing something wrong.

Define "solid" without begging the question.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I fail to see how moral subjectivism prevents you from acting in your own (or your society´s, for that matter) best interests.

Are those objective best interests? Or merely the "best interests" that are right for you personally? And how do you make the argument?

"Um, Mister Dictator, it's wrong for you to cancel our freedom of speech."

"Wrong? It's right for me!"

Define "solid" without begging the question.

Objective, and not just all in your head.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

Are those objective best interests?

No, of course not. Remember, we are talking moral subjectivism.

Or merely the "best interests" that are right for you personally?

Is that really the only alternative?

And how do you make the argument?

Yes, it´s hard to convince a dictator to change his ways. I suspect, though, that convincing him that there is an objective morality and that this objective morality proves him wrong is not an easy task, either. (Remember our long discussion in which you tried to make your case for an objective morality? You abandoned it at the point when I had posted some tough questions - and I´m not even an evil dictator. ;-) )

But your initial operative term was "preventing", not "convincing" him, anyway.

"Um, Mister Dictator, it's wrong for you to cancel our freedom of speech."

"Wrong? It's right for me!"

What makes you think that you as a moral objectivist will get a different response from him than me the moral subjectivist?

Again - negotiating with a dictator is surely not an easy task but that wasn´t the topic. The topic was the ability, willingness and readiness to take action, and why moral subjectivism would preclude these.

I don´t have to convince him that he´s "wrong", and I won´t even try to convince him that he´s (objectively) "wrong". Remember, I don´t believe there is an objective morality. In the absence of objective morality the argument "I won´t tolerate you doing this to me/us" is solid enough.

Objective, and not just all in your head.

Well, for a moral subjectivist there is no objective morality. So you are violating the premise here.

In the absence of objective morality "solid" can´t mean "objective".
So we would have to look for something else for a justification of preventing a dictator from imposing his subjective morals upon me. Since his argument, according to you, is "It´s right for me." I think the response "But it´s not right for me, and since your action affects me I feel completely justified in preventing you from doing it to me." is appropriate and covering the issue satisfactorily.

 

[Verv]

i agrea that a society needs to hold rules that override an individuals feelings to function

it just seems to me lots of people are to quick to proclaim there society's rules as growing out of some extra human good it feels like propaganda to me.

and as for owing god if god chose to make me he was doing his own will that is not a debt on my part

if god created things i need to feel happy he also is responsible for my nature that desires such things on some level

We all have a debt to be able to enjoy this good life, I think.

Especially born as free people with internet access, we have a huge advantage over others.

The great thing about moral subjectivism is that it prevents you from starting Holy Wars.

True...

But Holy Wars? They are not as common as you would think.

Most wars are for profit.

 

[Eudaimonist]

(Remember our long discussion in which you tried to make your case for an objective morality? You abandoned it at the point when I had posted some tough questions - and I´m not even an evil dictator. ;-) )

Did you? I'm sure that was just a coincidence. Meta-ethics isn't a casual subject to discuss. It requires a big investment of time and effort and mental energy, especially when it would be with someone as thoughtful and intelligent as yourself.

I do recall that I had intended to start a discussion of meta-ethics with you, but perhaps the winter was approaching (I suffer from Seasonal Affective Disorder in Sweden's dark months) and I had to abandon that.

What makes you think that you as a moral objectivist will get a different response from him than me the moral subjectivist?

I really should have been more clear about something. I'm not suggesting that a dictator will simply step down if his accuser is a moral objectivist. I'm talking about a kind of moral confidence and persuasiveness that is necessary to oppose destructive political movements on a cultural level. If the opposition to a harmful movement is timid, as will likely be the case for a morally subjective culture, opposition is likely to be half-hearted. It won't have much umph behind it. No one will be able to say that the destructive movement is actually wrong! "Who are we to say...."

In the absence of objective morality the argument "I won´t tolerate you doing this to me/us" is solid enough.

For you personally, but it will be difficult to rouse others to your cause. Your case will come down to "but I don't like what he's doing."

In the absence of objective morality "solid" can´t mean "objective".

Of course. I was assuming a culture that tends to advocate objective morality.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

Did you? I'm sure that was just a coincidence. Meta-ethics isn't a casual subject to discuss. It requires a big investment of time and effort and mental energy, especially when it would be with someone as thoughtful and intelligent as yourself.

I do recall that I had intended to start a discussion of meta-ethics with you, but perhaps the winter was approaching (I suffer from Seasonal Affective Disorder in Sweden's dark months) and I had to abandon that.

No need to justify yourself. It´s just that I remember I had already put a lot of time, thought and effort into it, and we had just come to crucial points. I was highly interested in your arguments....and I honestly regretted that the discussion came to an end.

I really should have been more clear about something. I'm not suggesting that a dictator will simply step down if his accuser is a moral objectivist. I'm talking about a kind of moral confidence and persuasiveness that is necessary to oppose destructive political movements on a cultural level. If the opposition to a harmful movement is timid, as will likely be the case for a morally subjective culture, opposition is likely to be half-hearted. It won't have much umph behind it. No one will be able to say that the destructive movement is actually wrong! "Who are we to say...."

Yes, maybe you have a point there, but then again maybe not so much.

This probably has to do with our different ideas what is required for successful communication (then again, when comparing our communication styles, I do not get the impression they are THAT different). I simply don´t believe that "You are wrong" is - practically - a more powerful (successful) statement than "I think you are wrong". Rather, it´s going to provoke unnecessary resistance on part of the person opposite. It´s going to set them up to fight. Even more so when they themselves are convinced they are in hold of the objective truth.
The inevitable fact in such a situation is that there are two persons of opposite views. Moral subjectivity (notwithstanding the question whether there is an objective morality).
Negotiations (as opposed to mere claims that they are in hold of the objective truth) are necessary in this situation.

For you personally, but it will be difficult to rouse others to your cause. Your case will come down to "but I don't like what he's doing."

Well, if the person opposite is willing to consider my ideas rationally (and without this mutual will negotiations and discussions are wasted time, anyway) he will consider my ideas no matter whether I claim them to be the unquestionable truth or just my take on it. He will consider the reasoning behind my ideas.

Of course. I was assuming a culture that tends to advocate objective morality.

So let me understand the scenario: There is a culture that tends to advocate objective morality, and I am part of a small minority that has different moral ideas. Correct?
And you really think in that situation I will be more successful in convincing them of my minority position when I claim my morality to be objective? Sorry, but I don´t see that.

But maybe I am concluding from myself on others. When someone tells me about their moral convictions my response is: "Let´s hear the reasoning behind it!" A person who claims to be in hold of the objective truth doesn´t get a bonus or something.

 

[Belk]

Have you read all of my posts in this thread? I have shown exactly why moral truths are objective, and that people who believe that moral truths are subjective are in fact Moral Relativist.

Should we alert the media? The greatest philosophical minds the world has produced have been unable to accomplish this herculean task. That has always been part of the fun in debating philosophy, there are no hard answers. Perhaps you could direct us to the post where you have managed to do these two things?

 

[Belk]

Where does your morality come from?

Some from the society that shaped me, some from my own reasoned logic, some from our evolutionary background.

How does any of that validate the your assertion that I must hold all moral frameworks as equal?

 

[blarg the 2nd]

Perhaps, but it also prevents a society from successfully opposing a dictator who wants to start wars for his own purposes. There is no solid moral ground on which to stand to say that the dictator is doing something wrong.


eudaimonia,

Mark

unless lots of people happen to hate the dictator or his wars im not sure the above is true and that you need faith in solid moral ground to be dedicated and unite with others is a common cause

 

[blarg the 2nd]

Are those objective best interests? Or merely the "best interests" that are right for you personally? And how do you make the argument?

"Um, Mister Dictator, it's wrong for you to cancel our freedom of speech."

"Wrong? It's right for me!"



Objective, and not just all in your head.


eudaimonia,

Mark

but its wrong for me and these other like minded people so we will fight you until you are dead

um Mr dictator its wrong for you to cancel are freedom of speech

Wrong It can not be wrong the people dissenting from whats is government approved is immoral for every one.

or maybe

Wrong it can not be wrong i rule by the grace of god and the people have no right to disobey me

 

[Freodin]

That seems to be the main problem: the moral objectivist (of a certain colour) don't have anything to offer but "morals are objective, that means they are true! My morals are true and therefore objective, because of what I believe."

I have come to the conclusion that there are no "right" and "wrong" at all. Might does not make right. Might does not make wrong either. Might makes results... and you can either like them or not.

 

[blarg the 2nd]

though liking something or not liking something dose seem to make right or wrong i dont know of any one who accepts doing what they don't like as good if there not trying to get something better out of it in some way or something worse

 

[SonOfTheWest]

That seems to be the main problem: the moral objectivist (of a certain colour) don't have anything to offer but "morals are objective, that means they are true! My morals are true and therefore objective, because of what I believe."

I have come to the conclusion that there are no "right" and "wrong" at all. Might does not make right. Might does not make wrong either. Might makes results... and you can either like them or not.

The way I tend to say it. Right and wrong ultimately boil down to consequences. The consequences of some actions we call right, and some we call wrong. Because of the general uniformity of the universe, and more important the part of the universe we call home. We have enough regularity that we can develop axiomatic moral codes, even if we through the course of human history and the sheer amount of various involved, disagree on large amounts of situations.

The huge amount of factors involved, from biology(and how evolution has played a part in the development of morals), environment, sociological pressures,etc make it difficult to pin down very small specific things and declare it the totality of the factors involved in how morals are shaped. Doesn't make it impossible I think. But I think when discussing moral development you have to switch back and forth between the long and short view very rapidly.